Validation of three-dimensional printed models of intracranial aneurysms.

INTRODUCTION: Three-dimensional (3D) printing has evolved for medical applications as it can produce customized 3D models of devices and implants that can improve patient care. In this study, we aimed to validate the geometrical accuracy of the 3D models of intracranial aneurysms printed using Stereolithography 3D printing technology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To compare the unruptured intracranial aneurysm mesh between the five patients and 3D printed models, we opened the DICOM files in the Sim&Size® simulation software, selected the region of interest, and performed the threshold check. We juxtaposed the 3D reconstructions and manually rotated the images to get the same orientation when needed and measured deviations at different nodes of the patient and 3D printed model meshes. RESULTS: In the first patient, 80% of the nodes were separated by <0.56 mm and 0.17 mm. In the second patient, the deviations were below 0.17 mm for 80% of the meshes' nodes. In the next three patients, the deviations were below 0.21, 0.23, and 0.11 mm for 80% of the meshes' nodes. Finally, the overall deviation was below 0.21 mm for 80% of the mesh nodes of the five aneurysms. CONCLUSIONS: 3D printed models of intracranial aneurysms are accurate, having surfaces that resemble that of patients' angiographies with an 80% cumulative deviation below 0.21 mm.

The pressure reduction coefficient: A new parameter to assess aneurysmal blood stasis induced by flow diverters/disruptors.

Background and purpose Pore density (PD), surface metal coverage (SMC) and the number of wires are all different parameters which can influence the efficacy of a flow disruptor/diverter. Nevertheless, the relative importance of a parameter to induce intra-aneurysmal blood stasis is still poorly evaluated. Therefore, comparison between devices based on a unique value is not reliable. The aim of this study was to propose a new bench top parameter (the pressure reduction coefficient (PRC; ξ)) in order to assess the global haemodynamic effect of each flow diverter/disruptor to slow flow. Methods Eight devices were tested in vitro during three different flow conditions. For the eight devices, the PRC was computed at different volumetric flow rates to characterise flow reduction. Comparison was made with SMC, PD and the number of wires. Results The PRC obtained for flow disruptors was on average 1.5 times more efficient in reducing flow compared to flow diverters. PD (mm2) ranged from 24 to 38 for flow diverters and did not independently correlate with the PRC. The SMC of flow diverters ranged from 25% to 70%, and ranged from 20% to 100% for flow disruptors, without independent correlation to the PRC. The number of wires ranged from 48 to 96 for the flow diverters and did not correlate independently to the PRC. Conclusion There were no direct correlations between individual device characteristics and the PRC, suggesting a multifaceted and interrelating association of the overall design of each implant. Hence, the PRC could be used as a simple, reliable parameter to assess the overall capacity of flow disruptors/diverters to induce intra-aneurysmal blood stasis.